Legal AF by MeidasTouch - Trump Files BAFFLING Reply Brief in LAST DITCH Effort to Avoid March Trial

Episode Date: November 24, 2023

Trump’s lawyers now claim in a new court filing that Trump had a first amendment right to make FALSE statements that he won the election and there was election fraud that made him lose, and you can���t criminalize his lies. Michael Popok of Legal AF explains why the indictment is based on the CONDUCT of Donald Trump and his many former lawyer criminal lawyer co-conspirators to stop the peaceful transfer of power, not just Trump’s speech, which should lead to a fast denial of Trump’s motion to dismiss.  Head to https://Aeropress.com/legalaf to save 20% at checkout! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Michael Popok, legal AF, taking a page out of Sydney, Powell, the convicted criminal and former Trump lawyers playbook. Trump's lawyers have now filed in the District of Columbia in order to convince Judge Chutkin to dismiss the indictment because it's unconstitutional, have now argued that Donald Trump's speech was in fact false, but that he has a first amendment right to use even false speech in the pursuit of his reelection and to stay in office. Let me repeat that.

Donald Trump's lawyers are arguing to the District of Columbia federal judge, Chuck, that his false statements, even if false, are free speech. And he has a constitutional right to make false statements, even if false are free speech and he has a constitutional right to make false statements, even if it leads to election interference and they rely primarily on a case decided in 2012 and written by then associate justice Kennedy called us versus Alvarez, where somebody running for office claimed that he was a marine and a marine hero and a marine who had gotten the congressional medal of honor, by the way, all easily verifiable. He was sort of the George Santos before George Santos.

None of that was true. And he got prosecuted under a stolen valor criminal statute that was put on the books by Congress because there was a whole rash of people that were claiming to be war heroes and and and be people that served our country when they they hadn't. And so that was struck in that statute was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2012 in favor of Mr. Alvarez because Judge Kennedy wrote effectively, you have the first amendment right to lie. Just like Santos had a first amendment right to say whatever he wanted when he ran for office, some of that may be crimes.

And then if you go too far, I think Santos is a perfect example. Your first amendment speech becomes unprotected criminal conduct and that gets prosecuted and convicted. And that same distinction, what Santos can say, what Santos can do is at the heart of why Donald Trump's going to lose this motion to dismiss or quashes indictment for being unconstitutional and if the best

They have to argue is to admit and concede that Donald Trump used false statements to his advantage, but he has a first amendment right to do that and now he's close He loves to cloak himself in the in he has a first amendment right to do that. And now he's close, he loves to cloak himself in the, in the, in the first amendment. He thinks that some sort of cape that he can put him, put around himself, that has some sort of magical superpowers. Core political speech, they're often heard to complain about and uses there as their sword, right? We have core political speech.

We can say and do anything. We can harass and attack law enforcement, FBI agents, judges, law clerks. Doesn't matter what happens to them. Doesn't matter, you know, how much our followers go after them and attack them and try to assassinate them. We're blameless. First amendment core political speech, even though we're participants in voluntarily in a criminal court system where we've been indicted, Donald Trump, 91 times,

is facing four crimes at least in New York and then in Georgia and then in Florida, which makes him a participant in the criminal justice system, who's justice is at the discretion of the judge and the system. Doesn't matter. First Amendment core rights, I'm also running for president. I can say and do anything. I'm Superman. That's not how the justice system works. And we're starting to see that now. And you can see when their lawyers rely on cases like Alvarez

and by extension on Santos, they just completely ignore everything in the indictment. Let me be more specific and I'll read to you from the indictment where they are wrong. What they say at the heart of this paper, they've just filed, there's brief, they've just filed with Judge Chutkin. Right before Thanksgiving, they said that the worst, the worst that the indictment says is that Donald Trump lied and that lying is at the heart, lying alone is at the heart of all four criminal conspiracies charged against Donald Trump in DC, but that there's no conduct. This is a quote from their brief. No conduct is involved

about those crimes. And therefore, since it's only speech, you can't criminalize speech, and even false speech can't be criminalized. See the Alvarez case with the fake Marine. We win, you know, who, what time can we go to lunch? Wrong. That means they haven't read the indictment or more importantly or more to the point they bury their head in the sand and they're willfully blind to what the indictment actually says. I am going to read to you from the indictment and why this is not an attempt to regulate by criminal law non-speech or speech or create what Justice Kennedy was concerned about in 2012 and Alvarez with the Ministry of Truth out of George Orwell's 1984, because there is to answer the question in the briefing by Donald Trump's lawyers, John Loro and Todd Blanche.

There is plenty of non-speech conduct at the heart of the indictment. It's right there, in literally in black and white. It's not just speech, right? Even though certain types of speech, including those that lead to incitement or riot or engagement, insurrection or rebellion are not protected by the first amendment, not every speech is protected by the first amendment. But the indictment goes beyond that. And let me read to you from certain to remind everybody, because we're so far removed from the indictment. You know, I got filed in August. We're here in November, just to remind everybody.

First of all, the whole indictment anticipates the argument that they're making right now. It's almost like they read that line, decided to run with it and ignore the rest of the indictment. In paragraph three of the indictment, Jack Smith, special counsel says as follows, first line, the defendant had a right, like every American to speak publicly about the election and even to claim falsely that there had been outcome, determinative fraud during the election that he had won. He's allowed to do that.

That's the first line paragraph three of the indictment. You want to lie about the election. You want to lie that you should have won. You want to lie that there was fraud, the election that made it. So you should have won. You're allowed to do that. What you're allowed, but you're not allowed to go further and then use speech to influence conduct to commit the conspiracies at the heart of the indictment.

So they go on in paragraph three, the indictment goes on to say, Trump was entitled to formally challenge the results of the election through lawful and appropriate means, such as by seeking recounts or audits of the popular vote in states or filing lawsuits, challenging ballots and procedures. Indeed, he indeed in many cases that have fed it did pursue these methods. His efforts to challenge the outcome in any state through recounts, audits or legal challenges were uniformly unsuccessful. Now, here comes the list that they want to ignore in their current briefing of conduct, nonech conduct at the key. Using, remember, there's also six unindicted co-conspirators, Sidney Powell, now a convicted criminal in Georgia, one of his former lawyers, Rudy Giuliani,

an indicted criminal in Georgia, who's also lost his bar license in two states. Boris Epstein, a lawyer, still working for Donald Trump. It's always a head scratcher to me. Jeffrey Clark, Department of Justice, former Department of Justice, indicted in Georgia. John Eastman lost his law license. This is about to indicted in Georgia and Ken Chesbro, an indicted felon, convicted felon in Georgia, who's cooperating with the federal government former lawyer for Donald Trump. Those are the Coke and Spiritors. And so the indictment, the heart of the indictment is that Donald Trump threw these Coke and Spiritors

and others attached to them in the conspiracy tried to improperly overturn the lawful results of the election. If you're like me, morning coffee, non-negotiable. But I was tired of either waiting in line for an overpriced cup or settling for gritty bitter coffee at home. Now I've switched to using arrow press and I'm never going back. It's so easy and convenient and incredibly unique. I never knew coffee at home could taste this good. incredibly unique. I never knew coffee at home could taste this good. Arrowpress is like a French press, only better. It's the only press that uses a patented 3-1 brew technology, combining the best of several

brew methods into one, portable device. For a completely unique and delicious flavor profile, smooth, rich, and full-bodied, without the bitterness and grit found in other presses, and as a bonus, our press can brew thousands of recipes. Our press travels better than others too. It's compact and incredibly durable. That means you'll never have to endure terrible coffee at the hotel on the job or on an adventure again. It brews and cleans in less than two minutes, just add mediumine coffee grounds, pour in hot water, stir for five seconds, brew for

30 seconds, then press into your favorite mug and enjoy. There's a reason why Arrowpress is the barista's favorite home brewing tool. Arrowpress is the best-reviewed coffee pressed on the planet, with more than 55,000 five-star reviews. Thoughtful, proven, and under 50 bucks, Arrowpress is the perfect gift or stocking stuff for every coffee lover in your life this holiday season. Don't settle for less than the best. They'll love it. Arrowpress is shockingly affordable, less than 50 bucks, and we've got an incredible offer for our audience. Visit arrowpress.com slash legal AF. That's a E R O P R E S S dot com slash legal AF to save up to 20%. That's arrowpress.com

slash legal AF to save up to 20%. It's time to ditch the drive through toss the French press and say yes, to better mornings fueled by better coffee. Arrowpress ships to the USA and over 60 countries around the world, and we thank Arrowpress for sponsoring our show. But more specifically, to answer the question, John Loro poses in his brief, just filed on a half a Donald Trump. Where is the non-speech conduct that's required at the heart of the indictment?

And John, get new, get a new prescription, you know, your flex spending may be coming to an end this year. Use the remaining dollars to get your eyes checked. Because if you go specifically to paragraph 10, 10 a through E, the defendants conspiracy to impair, obstruct and defeat the federal government function through dishonesty fraud and deceit, deceit included the following manner and means. That means conduct, non-speech conduct. A, the defendant and co-conspirators use knowingly false claims of election fraud to get state legislatures and election officials to subvert the legitimate election

results and change electoral votes for the defendant's opponent, Joe Biden, to electoral votes for the president. That is on the pretext of baseless fraud claims. That's the speech. Here's the conduct that defendant pushed officials in certain states to ignore the popular vote, disenfranchised millions of voters, dismiss illegitimate electors and ultimately cause the ascertainment of invoting by illegitimate electors in favor of the defendant. See the difference, John Todd. I'm speaking to you guys for the lawyers for Donald Trump. You see the difference between speech and conduct.

If you don't, let me give you another example. Paragraph 10B from the indictment. The defendant and the co-conspirators organized fraudulent slate of electors in seven targeted states. Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin attempting to mimic the procedures that the legitimate electors were supposed to follow. This included causing the fraudulent electors to meet on the day appointed by the federal law, and which legitimate electors were to gather and cast their votes, cast fraudulent votes, all of these things, causing the fraudulent electors, mimicking the procedures, targeting

the states, organizing fraudulent slates of electors. That's conduct, not protected by the First Amendment, John and Todd. Let's keep going. Little C, 10C of the indictment, the defendant, that's Trump, and co-conspirators attempted to use the power and authority of the Justice Department to conduct sham election crime investigations and to send a letter to the targeted states that falsely claim that the justice department had identified significant concerns that may have impacted the election outcome. Okay, that's conduct. Justice department sham election letters sent out. That's conduct not speech. You see that little D the defendant and

co-conspirators, a co-conspirators attempted to enlist at the vice president to use his ceremonial role at the Jan 6 certification proceeding to fraudulately alter the election results. First, using knowingly false claims of election fraud, the defendant and co-conspirators attempted to convince the vice president to use the defendant's fraudulent electors. Get it? Conduct, pressuring the vice president, convincing him to use his powers. That's not just the first amendment. That's not protection.

That's conduct. And that's at the heart of the conspiracies and that defeats all of their arguments and their attempt to use Alvarez. And little E, after it became public on the afternoon of January 6th, a device president would not fraudulently alter the election results, a large and angry crowd, including many individuals whom the defendant had deceived into believing the vice president could and might change the election results, violently attacked the Capitol.

And as they, as that violence ensued, the defendant and the co-conspirators exploited here comes conduct, the disruption by redoubling efforts to levy false claims of election fraud to further delay, that's conduct, the certification based on those claims. So here's a distinction, John and Todd, I'm making this a tutorial for the lawyers for Donald Trump apparently. Here's a difference. Your guy wants to get up on a soap box and be a heckler. You guys like to talk about a hecklers veto under the First Amendment. Biden's

a fraud. I won. You know, votes are for me. There's other electors. Take a look at it and all that. You're free to do that. You're free to do that. As long as you don't incite a riot, lead to rebellion or insurrection, you're free to do that. But if your speech is used to commit conduct,

to perpetrate conduct, influence, in impact, elected officials, election officials, and try to move the needle of the vice president to pressure him. All of those things outlined in paragraph 10, at least in the 45 page indictment from August, is conduct, not first amendment speech. So to answer your question for the lawyers for Donald Trump, where, where in the indictment, is there non, is there a non speech conduct? We've looked, we can't find it. Well, then you're not looking very hard because it's at least on paragraph 10

and then threaded throughout the entire indictment. So now you can see, and this is why we don't blow smoke or sunshine on legal AF. Now you can see why these motions filed by Donald Trump, motion to disqualify the motion to qualify, motion to dismiss the indictment, motion to quash the indictment, motion to remove references to January 6th from the indictment, all lose very, very quickly by Judge Chalkin. Not because she's biased, not because she's a Democrat, not because she's a Trump hating judge, but because she's applying the law not because she's a Trump hating judge, but because she's applying the law to the facts and she's looking at the indictment and she's reading the paragraphs that I'm reading to you on this hot take and she's scratching her

head and concluding, why are they keep saying it's only first amendment? In fact, there's very little first amendment speech that is being addressed in the indictment and it's a whole hell of a lot of conduct by Donald Trump. And speech always precipitates conduct. We don't live in a world of mental telepathy. It's not like I go, I'd like my wife to bring me the cottage cheese right now. If I want the cottage cheese, I gotta yell out,

hey babe, can you grab the brake stone and bring it upstairs please? I appreciate you. Okay. That's the difference between first and then it's beach and conduct, right? I could also lie and say, I can't get up. Babe, my legs fell asleep.

Can you help me? That could be a lie. And that's protected by the first amendment. But when I get her to do that thing, by that lie, I've now created conduct because I've influenced and pressured my wife to bring me cottage cheese. See how I can reduce this down to the most basic elements. It's also, it's the time when I need a snack. And I think that's part of the hot tech as well. So this is what we do. Maybe, maybe not the cottage cheese part. Every week on legal AF twice a week on Mond, on what days this?

You can tell this is after the holidays on Wednesdays and Saturdays. Got it right. At 8 p.m. Eastern time, a video presentation recording on legal AF, only on the Midas Touch network on their YouTube channel, and then on audio podcast platforms wherever you can get it from. And then I do hot takes like this one about every day. It seems like every hour depending upon the day at the intersection of law, politics and justice. We don't blow smoke or sunshine. We just bringing the facts in our analysis, practicing lawyers so that you can get it and understand it and not have the wool pulled over your eyes. So if you like what we're doing here, free subscribe to the Midas Touch Network.

That's what I said, free subscribe to their YouTube channel. Help them get the two million. They're over one eight right now. Help the bigger they get as an independent media network with no outside investors, the more your voice is heard. And until my next hot tick, until my next legal AF, this is Michael Popock reporting.

Hey, Midas, Mighty. Love this report. Continue the conversation by following us on Instagram, at MidasTouch, to keep up with the most important news of the day. What are you waiting for? Follow us now. you